Military community petition against red light cameras and insurance lobby support

imported post

Thanks, checking now. (nothing going on here at work, har har!)

imported post

And there is now a discussion about USAA's nanny state arrogance on:




LinkedIn Groups

• Group: Military Network

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers&discussionID=10570435&gid=59436&commentID=9027548&trk=view_disc

SNIP

USAA is starting to really annoy me, no longer are they the helper of the military, they think they are a B of A or other big bank.

imported post

I hate the idea of traffic cams because they are clearly a resource of thoe police state. Lets face it too, these people arbitrarily make speed limits too low in the hopes that people won't break them by as much but then can write tickets at will on just about any body. Its a load of crap and a threat to freedom!

imported post

Red light cameras have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety. NOTHING! It's ONLY reason for use is revenue generation.

As an expert professional driver, I can attest to this. Governmental reasoning (read:excuse) to employ red light cameras is to reduce accidents at intersections caused by people running red lights. As anyone with a modicumof intelligence knows, nobody blatantly runs red lights, red light running that the cameras are intended to enforce is the result of people trying and failing to make it into the intersection before the yellow light changes to red. They argue that such red light running causes accidents when the runner crashes into just released traffic from the opposing direction, and the enforcement stops that, thereby making the intersection safer. HOGWASH!

One, while red light cameras may reduce T-bone accidents from red light running, they significantly INCREASE rear end collisions from people stopping too quickly for traffic conditions to avoid the camera, for a no netreduction inintersection accidents. Red light cameras DO NOT make intersections safer.

Two, and I have witnessed this several times, they increase the instance of drivers making a right turn on red, crossing the opposing lanes of traffic perpendicularly, and making a right turn again, continuing on their original direction of travel just off the intersection, a MOST unsafe practice.

To TRULY reduce accidents at intersections caused by red light running, the REAL solution, is a simple matter of increasing the time delay between the light turning red and the light turning green on the opposing side, allowing the inevitable yellow light runners misjudging the available time, and other traffic unable to stop for traffic conditions or other legitimate reasons, to clear the intersection before releasing opposing traffic.

But of course,REAL solutionsdon't make the greedy government any money, do they? That's why they rarely employ any.

imported post

Blkwdw86 wrote:

Red light cameras have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety. NOTHING! It's ONLY reason for use is revenue generation.

As an expert professional driver, I can attest to this. Governmental reasoning (read:excuse) to employ red light cameras is to reduce accidents at intersections caused by people running red lights. As anyone with a modicumof intelligence knows, nobody blatantly runs red lights, red light running that the cameras are intended to enforce is the result of people trying and failing to make it into the intersection before the yellow light changes to red. They argue that such red light running causes accidents when the runner crashes into just released traffic from the opposing direction, and the enforcement stops that, thereby making the intersection safer. HOGWASH!

One, while red light cameras may reduce T-bone accidents from red light running, they significantly INCREASE rear end collisions from people stopping too quickly for traffic conditions to avoid the camera, for a no netreduction inintersection accidents. Red light cameras DO NOT make intersections safer.

Two, and I have witnessed this several times, they increase the instance of drivers making a right turn on red, crossing the opposing lanes of traffic perpendicularly, and making a right turn again, continuing on their original direction of travel just off the intersection, a MOST unsafe practice.

To TRULY reduce accidents at intersections caused by red light running, the REAL solution, is a simple matter of increasing the time delay between the light turning red and the light turning green on the opposing side, allowing the inevitable yellow light runners misjudging the available time, and other traffic unable to stop for traffic conditions or other legitimate reasons, to clear the intersection before releasing opposing traffic.

But of course,REAL solutionsdon't make the greedy government any money, do they? That's why they rarely employ any.

Click to expand...

Except gov'ts who employ this technology had it SOLD AND SOMETIMES ADMINISTERED by third party private for profit entities. The only way you sell anything to people who manage money is by showing them how it will make a net profit for them.

imported post

No victim, no crime. Victim: a real life, flesh and blood, man, woman, or child.

I say no to red light cameras.

imported post

Think red light cameras are bad?

Around 1979, Federal judge Abner Mikva advocated development of technology that could "see" under clothing to detect guns, and having that technology mounted in roving vans. Well, the technology is here, and Abner is still around. I suppose we will be hearing from him soon.....

imported post

This technology is now being used at airports around the country.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

This technology is now being used at airports around the country.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a cite for this assertion?

Will you provide a cite for this assertion?

imported post

if I had one, I would. diddnt see the need though, figured everybody knew.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

if I had one, I would. diddnt see the need though, figured everybody knew.

Click to expand...

Among my other hobbies, I am a Private pilot.... And I don't know this....

Not refering to the EXTREMELY INVASIVE SECURITY SCREENING TOOLS AT THE TSA CHECKPOINTS but rather to the trucks going mobile while scanning!

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

Most of these schemes take a photo of the license plate and the operator of the vehicle, then if the license plate and the photo of the driver are BOTH discernable they send a ticket to the REGISTERED OWNER OF SAID VEHICLE. They make the assumption that the operator of the vehicle is in fact the registered owner.

I have heard of some being told by the courts that even in the clear evidence that the driver photographed was NOT THE REGISTERED OWNER that the charges would not be dropped UNLESS the court was told who the operator was so that they could be charged!

IDISAPROVE OFANY SCHEME WHERE THE ASSUMPTION IS MADE THAT THE VEHICLE OBSERVED ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING A TRAFFIC LAW IS IN FACT BEING OPERATED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER.

The government must prove that I am guilty and making me prove that I am NOT GUILTY is a violation of my constitutional protections.

The ONLY way I MIGHT approve of this scheme is for the government to pay the falsely accused a significant penalty assessment for afalse accusation ...as inthegreater of10 times the actual cost incurred(lost wages, attorney fees, copying of documents, etc)or $1000.00in provingones innocence!

Click to expand...

The "But your honor, I wasn't driving the car" argument won't help you if you let someone else drive you car and they cause an accident that injures or kills someone. There's a real good chance that you will be named as a defendant inthe liable suit that will most surely follow.

imported post

Here's what some of those enterprising English types have done.

Get an old tire (or tyre in UK) little bit of gasoline (petrol) put it over the camera, light, and leave the area...

These pictures make me smile..

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

imported post

Boy I am surprised that anyone can still actually do anything that is not authorized over in the Old Blighty. Soon car tires will be required to be registered as if they were New York handguns and records kept of their disposal; and records will be required as to miles per gallon and every drop of petrol registered to the particular vehicle into which it was dispensed. And when some new means of mischief pops up, why, then so will more requirements to register and jusrtify and account.

At some point the farmers will be so busy they will have no time to produce food, and with no useful work being done (for the filling out of bloody thick forms full of nosey questions) there will be no money or anything else to trade for food. At which point the starving Brits will beg the Germans, the Russians, anybody to invade as long as they bring food; and the potential invaders will decline because they don't want to get caught up in all the red tape. Poor England.....

imported post

NOW THATS DOIN IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

imported post

http://blog.motorists.org/maryland-police-refuse-to-pay-speed-camera-tickets/



Unfortunately, too often this appears to be the case, creating unnecessary tension between police officers and motorists:

imported post

“You can’t have one set of laws for police officers and another one for the rest of the world,” Andrews said.

Wow :shock: just WOW :shock:

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

“You can’t have one set of laws for police officers and another one for the rest of the world,” Andrews said.

Wow :shock: just WOW :shock:

Click to expand...

Except there would be almost no police officers left if this were true.

imported post

Red Light cameras will not reduce police pulling people over. When government adds any law or any new technology... things only get worse. Government isn't the solution to our problems... government is the problem.

How about this... make only 1 traffic law. If you kill someone and you're proven guilty of gross neglagence... same as Murder... life in prison. If you injure someone... you are 100% responsible for their injuries and the damage to their car. Insurance is illegal to own. You want to insure against accidents.... have a savings account.

Stop harrassing drivers. speeding? No problem... if you cause an accident or hurt anyone... your life may very well be over. So drive carefully.